H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Fernando Gonzalez vs Guillermo Canas H2H: 1-2
Guillermo Canas holds a 2–1 lead over Fernando Gonzalez in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while Guillermo Canas leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Fernando Gonzalez won the 2009 Australian Open second round 7-5 6-3 6-4.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
CHI
Age 45
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H
1
–
2
3 main draw meetings
ARG
Age 48
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 22, 2009* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Fernando Gonzalez | 7-5 6-3 6-4 | Guillermo Canas | Match data |
| Apr 1, 2008* | Miami Masters | Masters 1000 | R32 | Hard | Guillermo Canas | 7-6(6) 7-5 | Fernando Gonzalez | Match data |
| May 16, 2002* | Hamburg Masters | Masters 1000 | R32 | Clay | Guillermo Canas | 2-6 7-6(0) 6-0 | Fernando Gonzalez | Match data |
* Estimated match date where the exact historical date is unavailable.
Career Comparison
| Player | Current | Peak | Pts | Elo | W | L | Win % | GS | 1000 | Finals | 500 | 250 | Titles |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fernando Gonzalez | #569 | #5 | 3,285 | 2,088 | 330 | 192 | 63.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 10 | 11 |
| Guillermo Canas | #1,110 | #8 | 2,075 | 2,008 | 244 | 188 | 56.5% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 7 |
Career Progression by Age
Seasons are aligned by the age each player spent most of that calendar year. GS and Titles are cumulative career totals through that season.
| Age | Fernando Gonzalez | Guillermo Canas | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 1999 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #412 | 1,510 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #183 | 1,462 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2000 | 8–5 | 61.5% | #115 | 1,622 | 0 | 1 | 1997 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #129 | 1,461 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2001 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #139 | 1,523 | 0 | 1 | 1998 | 6–14 | 30.0% | #95 | 1,481 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2002 | 40–21 | 65.6% | #18 | 1,863 | 0 | 3 | 1999 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #71 | 1,575 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2003 | 31–25 | 55.4% | #35 | 1,733 | 0 | 3 | 2000 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #231 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #23 | 1,728 | 0 | 4 | 2001 | 45–21 | 68.2% | #15 | 1,840 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2005 | 46–21 | 68.7% | #11 | 1,890 | 0 | 7 | 2002 | 41–22 | 65.1% | #15 | 1,857 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2006 | 47–20 | 70.1% | #10 | 1,982 | 0 | 7 | 2003 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #272 | 1,805 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2007 | 33–21 | 61.1% | #7 | 1,868 | 0 | 8 | 2004 | 40–21 | 65.6% | #12 | 1,898 | 0 | 6 |
| 27 | 2008 | 32–15 | 68.1% | #15 | 1,863 | 0 | 10 | 2005 | 22–11 | 66.7% | #102 | 1,889 | 0 | 6 |
| 28 | 2009 | 39–16 | 70.9% | #11 | 1,988 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2010 | 13–9 | 59.1% | #68 | 1,847 | 0 | 11 | 2007 | 38–21 | 64.4% | #15 | 1,821 | 0 | 7 |
| 30 | 2011 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #298 | 1,808 | 0 | 11 | 2008 | 21–19 | 52.5% | #79 | 1,690 | 0 | 7 |
| 31 | 2012 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #509 | 1,780 | 0 | 11 | 2009 | 5–13 | 27.8% | #191 | 1,628 | 0 | 7 |